Here is what Mitt Romney has to say about Barack Obama. He spoke this morning with CNN's John Roberts, and the McCain campaign has circulated a YouTube video of the exchange.

"You know, [Obama's] going to do his very best to try to walk back from what he said at the Democratic debate; and, in the Democratic debates the other candidates made it very clear they would not sit down with Ahmadinejad, himself, or with Assad, or Kim Jung-Il, or Castro, without condition," Romney said.

"And, Barack Obama said he would sit down with them in his first year. He would meet with them without condition. A statement like that shows a naive lack of experience that I think is going to haunt him throughout this campaign. It's the wrong course for him to have set. It's why people in Israel are very concerned about Barack Obama and why I believe that you're going to see time and again the experience of John McCain standing forward as a much better example.

"I think [Obama is] trying to say now he just wants to negotiate with these people only if he can make progress. Look, that's not what he said in the debate. He said he would meet personally with Ahmadinejad, with Assad, Kim Jung-Il, with Hugo Chavez, with Castro. That's simply the wrong course for American foreign policy. You only meet with those people when there have been conditions met and when there's been progress. Of course, you talk diplomatically. Diplomatic channels are always open between nations of the world. But the President doesn't grace the world's worst tyrants with a propaganda bonanza."

Comments

"MITT THE QUIT SPEAKS"

The GOP cannot still can't get George Bush, or Dick Cheney to come clean about the 9 billion dollars lost in Iraq!
Secretary Paulson, has yet to be accountable for it still.
The War on Terror is still Alive and Happening.
THE MEDIA IS IN CHECK!
FISA IS WORKING, BUT WE STILL DON'T HAVE "IMMUNITY, PROTECTION LIABILITY"
MATT MCCELLAN IS GETTING READY TO TALK!
THE "STATE OF THE UNION" HASN'T CHANGED!
DAVID MASON IS STILL HEAD OF THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION!
RICK RENZI TRIAL WAS POSTPONED, BUT IS FORTHCOMING.
JOHN MCCAIN'S "NATIONAL LEADERSHIP TEAM" NEEDS ME!
SO WHAT IF I QUIT, AT A TIME OF WAR!
I GOT A NEW AMERICAN OWNED LANDSCAPE COMPANY DOING THE YARD!
I'M FIT TO BE VICE PRESIDENT TO A MAN I DESPISE! I'M COOL WITH THAT!
D.J. KARL ROVE HAS MY BACK! I'M COOL WITH THAT!

......and we should care what Plastic Mitt the elitist flip-flopper thinks.....why?

"Mitt Romney, incredibly, was able to avoid serving in Vietnam because he was on his Mormon mission, driving around the French countryside. (The Mormon church defined missions -- which all good young Mormon men go on -- as a form of priesthood.) In fact, not one of Romney's five sons has served in the military either, despite Mitt arguing for U.S. military involvement in Iraq and elsewhere."

"Even more outrageously, when he was asked to justify this hypocrisy, Romney claimed that his sons were serving the country by driving Winnebagos around Iowa and campaigning for him."
-
full story here:http://www.realchange.org/romney.htm

Let me ask Romney and all the other Republicans supporting McCain and calling him the 'leader': How in the world can McCain even begin to call himself a leader, a man of best judgment, a man of knowledge, a man of experience, when all he has done since he's been running is following the lead of Barack Obama. He has taken Obama's mantra of 'change', he has stollen Obama's slogan, "Change you can believe in" to McCain's "Leader you can believe in", he has stollen Obama's logo idea now up on the McCain website. And before it's all over, McCain will probably look just like Obama. So McCain, Romney have nothing to say to Obama other than asking Obama -- how do you lead?

......and we should care what Plastic Mitt the elitist flip-flopper thinks.....why?

Posted by: John E | June 5, 2008 1:39 PM

Good point- your indictment of Romney goes for Obama as well though... the problem is that unlike Romney, Obama has ( by recent polls) the inside track on being the POTUS... so attack Romney if it makes you feel good, this does nothing to make the fact that Obama has demonstrated "scary" ignorance and inexperience in foreign policy.

Mitt the foreign policy expert speaks. I'm sure former state governors like Mitt and George Bush are foriegn policy experts who would never, for example, blunder into the invasion of some middle eastern oil producer without a clue on how to extract us once we're there.

This is nonsense. The president should meet with foriegn leaders whenever he decides it's necessary or possibly helpful. Obviously some preparation should be done so there are no miscommunications. I remember reading a story way back when about Saddam threatening Kuwait and some HW Bush flunky giving Saddam's guy the impression we wouldn't get involved.

Why is it when I read these posts from people in the Swamp, largely those who represent the Left do nothing but namecall, take swipes and rarely ever actually debate or bring up a rational point?

Mitt the Quit, Plastic Mitt? Are you folks still in third grade?

And, Cheryl, there is a big difference between meeting the leader of a country like China or the ole Soviet Union compared to the leader of North Korea or Iran. With China, you are talking about a superpower. The leader of China did not speak daily about obliterating another country like Ahmadinejan does about Isreal or even the U.S.

One good reason to talk to the president of Iran would be in the discussion he could be told that talking about Isreals demise is a pretty stupid thing. Isreal ciuld drop a A bomb on Iran any day it wants to .

John McCain was unphased by the notion of spending 100 years in Iraq until his advisors informed him that telling the people what he really felt wasn't going to get him elected; and John McCain danced while singing "bomb, bomb Iran" in front of an audience of American citizens, while American men and women were dying in Iraq fighting a war started under false pretenses, but Mitt Romney thinks that Barack Obama has a foreign policy problem? I really hope Republicans keep beating the drums of war and remain clueless to the reality that the vast majority of "we the people" aren't buying their phony exploitiation of our genuine patriotic feelings anymore, and that we want Americans out of harm's way and safely at home with their families.

Green Trees,
Nixon went to China and toasted with them in 1972, a year we were still in VN actively fighting. China was NVn and VC's main supporter, along with the Eastern Block.
Yet we talked to them without pre-conditions.
I don't agree with the differences you list. If anything it just means we are in a even more superior position with NK and Iran.

And, Cheryl, there is a big difference between meeting the leader of a country like China or the ole Soviet Union compared to the leader of North Korea or Iran. With China, you are talking about a superpower. The leader of China did not speak daily about obliterating another country like Ahmadinejan does about Isreal or even the U.S.
Posted by: Green Trees | June 5, 2008 2:49 PM

You don't make a convincing point as to what the "big difference" is between these countries. I fail to see what the big deal is about TALKING to someone. Now doing something boneheaded like selling them arms like Reagan did...now that's a big deal.

The idea that before an American President meets with a foreign leader with whom we are at odds there ought first be some symbolic act of submission is so arrogant and paternalistic as to not merit publication.
The "propaganda bonanza" we would reap from appearing willing to talk would be priceless.

We should be talking with whoever, whatever, whenever AS LONG AS IT'S TO OUR ADVANTAGE to do so.

Right after Iraq fell, then-President Khatani of Iran (far more moderate and West-friendly than his successor) was ready to talk to us, and was willing to put just about EVERYTHING on the table -- letting go of their nuclear aims, rethinking their relationship with us, and generally trying to return to the modern world. Trust Iran or not, we would have had everything to gain and little to lose by such talks. BUT, Bush decided we were too far above talking to Iran, so we declined.

Khatani, having failed in his diplomatic efforts, lost face and power to the more anti-West, Islamic fundamental forces in Iran; Ahmadinejad succeeded him, and now we're listening to rants about wiping Israel off the face of the earth.

Talking to other nations isn't going to hurt us (as long as we keep all our options open while we're talking, commensurate with the situation). NOT talking is what got us into the trouble we're having now.

The reason why you see all these Obama hatefilled supporters attacking MItt is because they can nor refute what he said. I am not a fan of Romney but he is 100% correct on this front. THose who run out of ideas chose to attack. That is exactly why Hillary's people are never going to vote for Obama. WHile Hillary people were debating the issues Obama backers were attacking her character at every chance. That is what they do. They know that their ideas are stupid so they just attack instead of debating issues.

Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)